Transit Alternatives Analysis

Adam Coppola Summary Report

1 Transit Alternatives Analysis December 2020 Acknowledgements The FIRST AVE Advisory Committee provided input throughout the development of this study. Its members include: » Kristen Blum, CHI » Jason James, Heartland Properties » Ramon Calzada, Centro Latino » Drew Kamp, Council Bluffs Chamber of Commerce » Donna Dostal, Pottawattamie County Community » Fiona Kennedy, Heartland Bike Share Foundation » K.C. Knudson, Knudson Development » Lindsey Flanigan, HyVee W. Broadway » Brenda Mainwaring, Iowa West Foundation » Benny Foltz, Heartland Bike Share » Donald Mandel, CHI » Dania Freudenburg, Thomas Jefferson High School » Delaney Nelson, White Lotus » Sheryl Garst, 712 Initiative » Drew Rowe, NP Dodge and Mode Shift Council Bluffs » Tim Hamilton, Council Bluffs Community School District » Mitch Streit, HyVee » Melissa Head, City Council » Dan Van Houten, City Planning Commission » Matthew Henkes, Iowa West Foundation » Dean Wilson, Council Bluffs Community School District

“FIRST AVE” is an acronym that stands for Furthering Interconnections, Revitalization, Streetscapes, Transportation, and Aesthetics for a Vibrant Economy

2 Transit Alternatives Analysis Individuals from the City of Council Bluffs and from agencies within the region contributed to the development and review of this study.

The City of Council Bluffs Coordinating Regional Partners » Matt Cox, Public Works Department » Court Barber, MAPA » Brandon Garrett, Community Development Department » Scott Dobbe, Omaha by Design » Christopher Gibbons, Community Development Department » Mike Helgerson, MAPA » Courtney Harter, Community Development Department » Steve Jensen, Consultant » Justin James, Fire Department » Derek Miller, City of Omaha Planning Department » Ashley Kruse, Communications Officer » Stephen Osberg, Greater Omaha Chamber » Matt Mardesen, Mayor’s Chief of Staff » Vincent Martorello, Parks and Recreation Department Consultant Team » Matt Walsh, Mayor » Adam Wood, Toole Design » Haley Weber, Community Development Department » Jessica Schoner, Toole Design » David Von Stroh, Cambridge Systematics

3 Transit Alternatives Analysis Contents

»Introduction 5 »Assumptions and Approach 11 »Scenarios 23 »Comparison & Recommendation 42

4 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1. Introduction

5 Transit Alternatives Analysis Purpose & Components

The purpose of this project This study includes three parts: is to examine the feasibility » Approach and Assumptions – Identification and evaluation of factors of providing transit in the contributing to economic development; identification of transit solutions 1st Avenue Corridor and compatible with the 1st Avenue Corridor and greater Metro transit forecast potential ridership system. and the economic development and land » Scenarios – Creation of transit scenarios and complementary land use redevelopment impact of scenarios for each transit alternative and evaluation of economic each alternative. impacts. » Comparison and Recommendations – Comparative analysis of the economic impacts and potential return on investment for each transit and land development scenario combination.

6 Transit Alternatives Analysis Project Study Area

The 1st Avenue corridor is a former railroad alignment between West Broadway and 2nd Avenue that provided access to a grain storage facility and various other industrial uses. Over time, industrial uses have relocated outside of the study area, resulting in vacant parcels and other opportunities for redevelopment The study area follows the 1st Avenue corridor from the Missouri River to downtown Council Bluffs, then follows W Broadway and E Broadway to the medical center area. It extends a few blocks north and south of this central alignment.

7 Transit Alternatives Analysis Process & Timeline The City of Council Bluffs led This study was developed in three phases: this study in partnership with » Scenario Development – Transit technologies compatible with the the Metropolitan Area context were identified and organized into five alternative packages. Planning Agency (MAPA) and Complementary land development scenarios were created for each of was supported by a the five alternatives. consultant team. The FIRST AVE Advisory Committee met » Alternatives Analysis – Each alternative was analyzed to determine over the course of the project economic impacts associated with various levels of growth and to receive and review findings development, potential property tax generation, capital costs for on the three major transit investment, and potential transit ridership. components. » Multimodal Corridor Access Study – Biking and walking access to potential transit stations and stops was analyzed and recommendations for improving conditions for people walking and biking were identified and prioritized.

8 Transit Alternatives Analysis Background 1st Avenue is a 66‐foot‐wide former railroad corridor stretching from I‐29 in the west to Indian Creek in the east. It is one block south of West Broadway and represents an opportunity to link downtown Council Bluffs with downtown Omaha and all points in between. Roughly 30% of Council Bluffs residents live within a half‐mile of 1st Avenue. The corridor is lined with businesses along West Broadway, destinations such as Thomas Jefferson High School and Cochran Park, and numerous opportunities for mixed‐use and multi‐family residential redevelopment. Over the past decade, the City of Council Bluffs has worked to create a new future for the corridor through a variety of efforts, including the Comprehensive Plan (2014), West Broadway Corridor Plan (2015), West Broadway Corridor Real Estate Market Analysis (2015), recent Corridor Design Overlay zoning development, and the ongoing 1st Avenue Trail design project.

9 Transit Alternatives Analysis Current Development Patterns

The land along 1st Avenue is largely vacant and underdeveloped. Existing land uses are largely commercial with single‐family residential along the periphery. Over the last few years, the City of Council Bluffs has proactively worked to acquire and assemble vacant and underutilized land and seek bids from developers interested in building new, higher density, and mixed‐ use developments in these areas.

10 Transit Alternatives Analysis 2. Assumptions and Approach

11 Transit Alternatives Analysis Transit and Economic Development

As part of a broader strategy, high capacity or high frequency transit can generate economic development and redevelopment. This provides an opportunity to increase the potential of underdeveloped and vacant land along the 1st Avenue corridor as well as at either end of the study area. Based on the context and regional transit goals, bus rapid transit (BRT) and streetcar are both being considered as catalysts for redeveloping the corridor. However, research has found that transit is only one of three success factors for generating economic development. The factors are, in order of impact: 1. Local government support (parcel assembly, zoning changes, financial partnership) 2. Latent land market potential (proximity to job centers and activity centers, walkability, amenities) 3. Type of transit investment (BRT, Streetcar, light rail)

12 Transit Alternatives Analysis The Research Research on examples of various BRT and streetcar implementations around the country largely focuses on ridership results, though there are some studies that focus on development impacts. An analysis of 21 transit investments by Hook, et al.* looked specifically at the development impacts of BRT, streetcar, and light rail transit (LRT) investments and the factors present in each corridor. This comparative study of five BRT corridors, four light rail corridors (some which functioned like streetcar), two streetcar corridors, and three BRT‐lite (improved bus) corridors found that the type and quality of transit investment was only a tertiary predictor of transit‐oriented development (TOD) impacts. The greatest predictor by far was the level of government support for TOD, including parcel assembly, regulatory and zoning changes, and financial and marketing partnership. The second strongest factor was the existing strength of the land market in the corridor. Categorization for each of these factors is described on the following page.

*Hook, Walter; Stephanie Lotshaw, and Annie Weinstock. “More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors” (2013). Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, New York.

13 Transit Alternatives Analysis Government Support Weak Moderate Strong Little/no promotion of TOD Marketing activities Extensive marketing of corridor Hook, et al classifies Rezoning for some sites Rezoning throughout corridor government support as weak, Land assembly Land assembly moderate, and strong based Some financial incentives Range of financial incentives on these factors: Investment in related infrastructure Significant investment in related infrastructure Environmental clean‐up Environmental clean‐up Pro‐active outreach to developers Comprehensive plan for corridor

Land Market Potential Limited Emerging Strong Not easily developed Land available for redevelopment In or adjacent to downtowns with available land for Hook, et al classifies land development Blight or no clear economic Some blight, but adjacent/near to Strong economic activity already in corridor market potential as limited, anchor economic anchor Already developed or held in Lower‐intensity development ripe for Historical buildings and other attractive features of emerging, and strong based on reserve by institutions redevelopment existing built environment these factors: Adjacent to highway or active rail Repurposed ROWs Walkable, with bike lanes; not far from other transit line lines Divided into small parcels with Clear title deeds and decent sized Strong real estate market confusing title deeds parcels Extreme contamination Some contamination No contamination Topographically difficult to Adjacent to waterfronts or attractive natural develop features

14 Transit Alternatives Analysis Case Studies The 21 examples analyzed in the Hook, et al study are shown to the right. The Kansas City Main Street MAX Bus, Seattle South Lake Union Streetcar, and the Portland Streetcar received “below basic” ratings for their transit service and yet were classified in the top tier of resulting development due to the strong level of government support and strong land potential. Also in the top tier of development impact, the Cleveland HealthLine BRT and the Portland MAX Blue Line LRT were rated highly for their transit service. This allowed both to overcome their lower‐rated emerging land market potential. All top‐tier examples had strong government support.

15 Transit Alternatives Analysis Source: Hook, et al. Takeaways for the 1st Avenue Corridor

Compared to transit investments studied by Hook, et al, the 1st Avenue Corridor would be considered to have emerging land market potential with some areas falling more in the limited classification. The current level of government support would be considered moderate to strong and could become stronger with additional actions on the part of the City. Thus, regardless of the ultimate choice of transit investment approach, Council Bluffs can likely expect development response like those examples in the second, or “moderate,” tier of the table on the previous page. The closest corollaries are assumed to be those in smaller cities such as Eugene BRT or Ottawa BRT. Examples from larger cities that connect away from their downtowns to suburbs and surrounding communities may also be appropriate models, such as the Denver Southwest Corridor LRT, the Phoenix Metro LRT, or the Pittsburg Martin Luther King Jr East BRT.

16 Transit Alternatives Analysis Transit Technologies Three existing transit technologies were considered in the Mixed‐Traffic development of scenarios and are described on this and the BRT following pages. Future technologies may provide different Prioritizes quick travel over longer opportunities and/or lower capital costs. distances with lower capital costs Within the universe of BRT and streetcar examples, there are spectrums of system design that define how they operate, how » Omaha’s new ORBT system is an example they are perceived by the public, and therefore their ability to of Mixed‐Traffic BRT catalyze economic development. This range is reflected in the » Mixed‐Traffic BRT operates similarly to a BRT Standard rating used by the Hook, et al study. regular bus line by sharing the roadway with other traffic. Buses would travel at the BRT has the widest range of possibilities. There are same speeds as car traffic and be impacted implementations in dedicated right‐of‐way that in many ways by traffic congestion. mirror premium transit, such as light rail or subway systems. » BRT typically uses farther‐spaced stations There are also examples of BRT that function in mixed traffic that often include sheltered seating areas and off‐board ticketing. and are more like express versions of regular bus service (rated » Construction needs typically include station as “below basic” by Hook, et al). platforms. 17 Transit Alternatives Analysis Dedicated‐ROW BRT Streetcar Prioritizes quick travel over Prioritizes increased access longer distances with more (with more stations) at reliable service lower speeds

» Dedicated Right‐of‐Way BRT operates in its own » Streetcar is a low‐speed rail transit technology that space, somewhat like rail transit. As such, it is not can operate in mixed traffic or dedicated right‐of‐way. impacted by motor vehicle traffic congestion. Rubber‐tired streetcar hybrids are an option. » This technology is an enhanced service that can » Streetcar stops are typically of similar design and operate as “light rail on tires” with stations spaced frequency as regular bus stops. As such, they typically further apart than those for a streetcar or regular bus provide greater access, but slower service compared route. Stations may include sheltered seating areas to BRT. and off‐board ticketing. » Construction needs typically include rails and » Construction needs typically include a busway or dedicated lanes, integrating signal pre‐emption or maintenance facilities. Based on existing technologies, priority yielding for the BRT at cross‐streets, and power generation and overhead wires are also station platforms. required. » Innovations in battery technology, guideway systems, and autonomy could reduce capital 18 Transit Alternatives Analysis costs and improve service. Comparing the Transit Technologies Each transit technology offers a different combination of benefits and limitations.

Mixed‐Traffic Dedicated Streetcar* BRT Right‐of‐Way BRT Capital Costs Lowest Highest

Timeframe Soonest Latest

Positive Development Least Most Impact

Typical Cost Comparison

Per‐mile costs were calculated from Mode Projects Miles Capital Cost Cost/mile 2019 applications for FTA capital investment grants. This data does BRT 24 268 $3.0 Billion $11.2 million not distinguish between mixed‐ Streetcar* 9 27 $1.702 Billion $63.3 million traffic and dedicated‐ROW transit. Source: Compiled from the Federal Transit Administration’s Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, Fiscal Year 2019. *Present‐day streetcar technology with overhead power, fixed rail guideway, and human operators. 19 Transit Alternatives Analysis Scenario Planning Approach

A scenario planning approach that focuses on the transportation and land use relationship was used to identify and evaluate the various benefits of different transit investment alternatives. Each scenario explores how changes to density, intensity, and urban form can influence demand for high‐capacity transit and how changes in transit service can influence access to housing and employment and promote economic development. Land use scenarios were created using Urban Footprint software. This approach entails creating a palette of block types and place types that reflect varying combinations of land uses, population densities, job densities, and urban forms. Scenarios are created by applying or “painting” the various block types on individual parcels. Place types are like prepackaged neighborhoods and are applied to larger areas, specifically the golf course. Block types and place types developed for the 1st Avenue corridor are described on the following pages.

20 Transit Alternatives Analysis Block Types Block types are combinations of components The table below lists the block types developed for this (e.g., 3 story townhome, 1 story retail, parking, study. BT 1 through 5 are primarily residential mixes with etc.). They are used for “painting” land use small amounts of employment. BT 6 through 10 are more scenarios onto individual parcels in Urban even mixes of residential and employment. For each, the Footprint. employment mix is 60 percent retail and 40 percent office.

4‐story 3‐story townhome 1‐story retail/ 4‐story 2‐story Open Parking The purpose of multiple block types is to apartment with parking commercial mixed use retail/office space

create variations in density and urban form. BT 1 25% 25% 20% 20% 10% This is achieved by adjusting the ratios of BT 2 35% 25% 15% 15% 10% component types within each block type to BT 3 35% 30% 5% 15% 15% create different levels of development mix and BT 4 40% 40% 8% 12% intensity. BT 5 40% 35% 15% 10% Across all block types, the maximum building BT 6 40% 10% 15% 15% 20% BT 7 50% 5% 17% 15% 13% height is four stories. Two‐ and three‐story BT 8 45% 10% 15% 10% 20% options are included to allow development BT 9 35% 25% 15% 15% 10% intensity to “step down” from station areas to BT 10 25% 40% 15% 10% 10% the edges of existing neighborhoods.

21 Transit Alternatives Analysis Place Types Place types are combinations of Included in the place type palette, but not in the block types, is a block types (described on the 6‐story residential option, used only for PT 3. The other two place previous page) and individual land types have a maximum building height of four stories.

use components. They are used for PT 1 (low‐density) PT 2 (mid‐density) PT 3 (high‐density) “painting” land use scenarios onto BT 1 (low‐density with commercial) 40.8% large areas in Urban Footprint. For BT 2 (low‐ to mid‐density with commercial) 3.4% this project, place types were only BT 3 (mid‐density with commercial) 4.8% BT 4 (mid‐ to high‐density with commercial) 15.6% used for the golf course area. BT 5 (high‐density with commercial) 6.8% BT 6 (low‐density with office) 3.4% The purpose of multiple place types BT 7 (low‐ to mid‐density with office) 5.4% is to create various options for use BT 8 (mid‐density with office) 22.4% in different land use scenarios. PT 1 BT 9 (mid‐ to high‐density with office) 2.7% has the lowest density and PT 3 has BT 10 (high‐density with office) 17.0% 6‐story residential 21.8% the highest. Parking structure/Mixed Use 2.7% 2.0% 2.0% Water 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% Park 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% Right‐of‐Way 32% 32% 32%

22 Transit Alternatives Analysis 3. Scenarios

23 Transit Alternatives Analysis Overview Five alternatives were developed for evaluation using the three transit technologies described on the previous pages. Conceptual alignments and station/stop locations were identified within the 1st Avenue/West Broadway corridor, through downtown Council Bluffs, and along Broadway to the medical center complex on the east end. Then a complementary land use scenario was developed for each. The scenarios are: » Broadway BRT – Mixed‐Traffic BRT on Broadway and through downtown. This would be designed and operate similarly to Omaha’s ORBT. » 1st Avenue BRT – Dedicated Right‐of‐Way BRT in the 1st Avenue Corridor, requiring construction of a street for bus use only, and through downtown in mixed traffic. » Streetcar – Present‐day streetcar technology in the 1st Avenue Corridor, requiring construction of a streetcar line, and through downtown in mixed traffic. Future innovation could change construction requirements. » Combination – Mixed‐Traffic BRT on Broadway/Kanesville and Streetcar in the 1st Avenue Corridor. Both would operate in mixed traffic through downtown. » Trail Only – No transit additions, only the multi‐use trail currently being developed along the 1st Avenue corridor. The multi‐use trail is part of all five scenarios. All five scenarios include the already‐planned developments at Rivers Edge/Playland Park. 24 Transit Alternatives Analysis Land Use Scenario Design Land use scenarios were developed using the block Retain in Base Scenario Redevelop in Scenarios types and place types described in Part 2. When 100 Block and surrounding structures of that Open parcels designing the scenarios, the intensity and spread of style development impact assumed for each transit Thriving downtown businesses such as banks Parking lots unconnected to businesses scenario was determined based on the assumptions Grocery stores Drive thru retail (fast food, etc.) described in Part 2. Multi‐story offices Motels River’s Edge (constructed thus far) Industrial/maintenance/repair shops Certain existing development was retained while Multi‐family residential complexes Single‐family homes other areas were identified in the scenario for Historical structures (e.g., YMCA building) Single‐story retail redevelopment (see the table to the right). Public assets (libraries, fire stations, schools, Already planned developments (e.g., River’s greenway/bike paths, city admin, museums) Edge/Playland Park) ‐ develop as proposed On the following pages, the development potential in Medical centers and major clinics, YMCA, etc. square footage for residential and employment Strategic Consideration Avoided purposes, and the resulting population and jobs if Omni Building Environmentally contaminated areas near rail corridor fully built out are reported. Note that development Underutilized downtown structures (e.g., Existing industrial sites with likely impact numbers for each scenario report the carpet warehouse) contaminated soil increments over baseline and include redevelopment Parking lots in front of medical centers Historical Structures of the golf course area.

25 Transit Alternatives Analysis Transit Demand Modeling For each scenario, the transit ridership potential was forecasted based on the expected transit operational characteristics and the population and employment growth generated by development and redevelopment using the Federal Transit Administration’s STOPS modeling software. In the ridership tables provided for each, forecasted figures are given for the baseline (i.e., ridership expected if the transit solution was implemented immediately) and for once the complementary land use scenario is fully built‐out. Based on available data, 2015 demographic values are used for the baseline. The 2040 numbers then report on the growth of ridership as the demographics grow and change.

26 Transit Alternatives Analysis Broadway BRT Transit Scenario BRT on West Broadway would run in traffic, operating as an express bus with six stops through the corridor as shown in the map on the following page. Station designs, bus vehicles, and operation conditions and parameters would likely mirror that of the Omaha’s ORBT. This alignment would cross the Missouri River on the I‐480 bridge before connecting with the ORBT system on the Omaha side. Stations are placed every half mile to one mile apart, as is typical for BRT service. The West Broadway alignment could more easily draw riders from the neighborhoods north of Broadway than could a 1st Avenue alignment. Development Scenario Development is concentrated around potential station locations. Compared to the 1st Avenue BRT scenario, Broadway BRT would have slightly less development intensity around the stations since mixed‐traffic BRT is typically not perceived to be a premium transit service. Development impacts are anticipated to radiate out to a three‐block area around the new stations, with the highest intensity occurring adjacent to the station and then tapering down from there. Development impacts are anticipated to be higher for this scenario compared to Omaha’s ORBT corridor, which is mixed‐traffic BRT, because the Broadway and 1st Avenue corridors have greater land availability, larger parcels, and fewer development barriers. It also has the appeal of close proximity to both downtowns. However, this scenario is dependent on strong, intentional civic effort to realize the development potential. 27 Transit Alternatives Analysis Broadway BRT Scenario

Golf Course Area: PT2

Potential Station Locations »Medical Centers – E Kanesville Blvd & Kimball Ave »Thomas Jefferson – 25th St »Downtown – W Broadway and Main St »Gateway – 35th St »16th St »40th St

28 Transit Alternatives Analysis Broadway BRT Scenario Analysis

Pre‐requisites: Ongoing operation of Demographic Impacts Omaha Rapid Bus Transit and coordination (at full build‐out in 2040; over current): for seamless operation on either side of Population Dwelling Units Jobs Full Scenario +28,066 +16,783 +2,131 the river as one system. Without Golf Course Redevelopment +20,418 +12,267 +1,207

Key co‐benefit projects: Bicycle and Development Impacts pedestrian improvements on surrounding (at full build‐out in 2040; square feet over current): cross streets to access the stations. This Residential Retail Office Full Scenario +17.2 million +730,000 +640,000 may include bike lanes and improved Without Golf Course Redevelopment +12.7 million +330,000 +460,000 sidewalks, improved signalization to allow people walking and biking to cross Daily Ridership Impacts: Broadway safely and without significant Baseline Ridership 2040 Ridership* Growth delays while waiting on traffic and signal Systemwide** 12,931 13,615 5.3% changes. Signal prioritization for BRT Omaha BRT 1,512 1,854 22.6% BRT on Broadway 310 540 74.2% buses can also improve travel times and *Including impacts of this transit solution on the system as a whole reliability of service through the corridor. **Daily ridership for the entire Omaha‐Council Bluffs Metro system

29 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1st Avenue BRT

Transit Scenario BRT in the 1st Avenue corridor would run in dedicated right‐of‐way. It would be less impacted by traffic congestion compared to the Broadway BRT alternative, though it would have to cross normal traffic at the cross‐ streets. It would still have only six stations, as shown in the map on the following page, largely mirroring the stop locations of the Broadway BRT, but one block south. The alignment would jog northward from 1st Avenue before going along the newly planned surface boulevard of West Broadway near the interchange and then crossing the Missouri River on the existing I‐480 bridge to connect with the ORBT system. The stations, vehicles, and operating speed and characteristics would mirror that of ORBT. This option could include the construction of a small bridge over the Union Pacific rail corridor between 16th Street and downtown (as shown on the map), or an alignment jog down to 2nd Avenue and then back up to 1st Avenue. Development Scenario Development is concentrated around potential station locations. Compared to the Broadway BRT scenario, this scenario would have higher intensity immediately around the stations since dedicated‐right‐of‐way BRT is typically perceived to be a premium transit service. Development impacts are anticipated to radiate out to a three‐block area around the new stations, with the highest intensity occurring adjacent to the station and then tapering down from there.

30 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1st Avenue BRT Scenario

Golf Course Area: PT2

Potential Station Locations »Medical Centers – E Kanesville Blvd & Kimball Ave »Thomas Jefferson – 25th St »Downtown – W Broadway and Main St »Gateway – 35th St »16th St »40th St

31 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1st Avenue BRT Scenario Analysis Pre‐requisites: Ongoing operation of Omaha Demographic Impacts (at full build‐out in 2040; over current): Rapid Bus Transit and coordination for Population Dwelling Units Jobs seamless operation on either side of the river Full Scenario +33,650 +20,084 +2,892 as one system. Grading and paving of 1st Without Golf Course Redevelopment +26,001 +15,569 +1,969 Avenue. Installation of signals or activated crossing arms at every cross‐street if free flow Development Impacts (at full build‐out in 2040; square feet over current): crossing priority would be given to the BRT. Residential Retail Office Full Scenario +19.7 million +900,000 +720,000 Key co‐benefit projects: Bicycle and Without Golf Course Redevelopment +14.5 million +500,000 +530,000 pedestrian improvements on surrounding cross streets to access the stations. This may Daily Ridership Impacts: include bike lanes and improved sidewalks, Baseline Ridership 2040 Ridership* Growth improved signalization to allow people Systemwide** 12,953 13,769 6.3% Omaha BRT 1,509 1,857 23.1% walking and biking to cross Broadway safely BRT on 1st Ave 327 627 91.7% and without significant delays while waiting *Including impacts of this transit solution on the system as a whole on traffic and signal changes. **Daily ridership for the entire Omaha‐Council Bluffs Metro system

32 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1st Avenue Streetcar Transit Scenario Streetcar in the 1st Avenue corridor would run in dedicated right‐of‐way. It would be a low‐speed transit service with up to 14 stations, as shown in the map on the following page, with one stop approximately every three blocks. Future technology innovations could provide alternative options with similar operational characteristics but with lower capital costs. The alignment would jog southward from 1st Avenue through the current golf course area behind the current residential apartment buildings before crossing the Missouri River on a new bridge dedicated to the streetcar and bicycle/pedestrian users. The streetcar would provide more visibility to the corridor and thus attract more riders than would BRT alternatives. Development Scenario Streetcar has overall higher visibility and place‐making impact than either BRT scenario. With more frequent stations compared to BRT, this scenario has greater concentration of new development around more stations, creating impacts across more parcels. Development impacts are anticipated to radiate out to a three‐block area around each streetcar stop, with the highest intensity occurring adjacent to the station and then tapering down from there. Since stations are placed closely, the potential development intensity along the alignment stays somewhat constant. The maximum building height along most of the corridor is 4 stories, though this scenario includes 6 story development at the western end stations in the golf course with proximity to downtown Omaha job centers. 33 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1st Avenue Streetcar Scenario

Golf Course Area: PT3

Potential Station Locations »Medical Centers – E Kanesville Blvd & Kimball Ave »Downtown – W Broadway & Main St »19th St »31st St »Union St »Bayliss Park – 6th St »22nd St »Gateway – 35th St »100 Block – at 2nd St »9th St »Thomas Jefferson – 25th St »40th St »16th St »28th St 34 Transit Alternatives Analysis 1st Avenue Streetcar Scenario Analysis Pre‐requisites: Construction and ongoing operation Demographic Impacts of Omaha Streetcar. Construction of the new bridge (at full build‐out in 2040; over current): across the Missouri River. Grading and any Population Dwelling Units Jobs necessary pre‐rail preparation of 1st Avenue. Full Scenario +53,680 +32,150 +6,310 Installation of safety barriers at every cross‐street if Without Golf Course Redevelopment +36,866 +22,186 +3,981 free flow crossing priority would be given to the streetcar. Construction of a small bridge over the Development Impacts Union Pacific rail corridor between 16th Street and (at full build‐out in 2040; square feet over current): downtown (as shown on the map), or an alignment Residential Retail Office jog down to 2nd Avenue and then back up to 1st Full Scenario +29.0 million +2.5 million +1.2 million Avenue. Without Golf Course Redevelopment +21.1 million +1.4 million +1.0 million Key co‐benefit projects: Bicycle and pedestrian improvements on surrounding cross streets to Daily Ridership Impacts: access the stations. This may include bike lanes and Baseline Ridership 2040 Ridership* Growth improved sidewalks, improved signalization to allow Systemwide** 13,664 15,055 10.2% people walking and biking to cross Broadway safely Omaha BRT 1,363 1,775 30.2% and without significant delays while waiting on Omaha Streetcar 1,220 1,566 28.4% traffic and signal changes. This alternative allows the 1st Ave Streetcar 556 1,385 149.1% creation of a multi‐use trail loop on both sides of *Including impacts of this transit solution on the system as a whole the Missouri River. **Daily ridership for the entire Omaha‐Council Bluffs Metro system

35 Transit Alternatives Analysis Combination

Transit Scenario The combination scenario includes the Broadway BRT and 1st Avenue Streetcar transit solutions and would entail all the assumptions for each of those individual components. Because of their proximity one block apart from each other, people would have two transit choices and therefore the combined ridership would be less than the sum of the ridership of each individual scenario. The BRT would presumably provide quicker, but less frequent service through the corridor and especially connecting existing employment centers, while the streetcar would provide more visible, more frequent, but slower service through the corridor. Development Scenario Due to two enhanced transit services, this scenario has the highest visibility and place‐making impact. With more total stations on parallel corridors, this scenario has the highest total amount of new development. Development impacts are anticipated to radiate out to a three‐block area around each streetcar stop, with the highest intensity occurring adjacent to the station and then tapering down from there. The maximum building height along most of the corridor is 4 stories, though this scenario includes 6 story development at the western end stations in the golf course with proximity to downtown Omaha job centers.

36 Transit Alternatives Analysis Combination Scenario

Golf Course Area: PT3

Potential Station Locations »Medical Centers – E Kanesville Blvd & Kimball Ave* »Downtown – W Broadway & Main St* »19th St »31st St »Union St »Bayliss Park – 6th St »22nd St »Gateway – 35th St* »100 Block – at 2nd St »9th St »Thomas Jefferson – 25th St* »40th St* »16th St* »28th St Transit Alternatives Analysis 37 *Areas with both a BRT and Streetcar station Combination Scenario Analysis Pre‐requisites: All pre‐requisites listed above for Demographic Impacts (at full build‐out in 2040; over current): the individual components, including continued Population Dwelling Units Jobs operation of ORBT, construction and operation Full Scenario +57,630 +34,583 +7,037 of Omaha Streetcar, bridge across the Missouri Without Golf Course Redevelopment +40,783 +24,619 +4,708 River, and rail development in the 1st Avenue corridor. Development Impacts (at full build‐out in 2040; square feet over current): Key co‐benefit projects: Bicycle and pedestrian Residential Retail Office Full Scenario +31.1 million +2.8 million +1.4 million improvements on surrounding cross streets to Without Golf Course Redevelopment +23.2 million +1.8 million +1.2 million access the stations. This may include bike lanes and improved sidewalks, improved signalization Daily Ridership Impacts: to allow people walking and biking to cross Baseline Ridership 2040 Ridership* Growth Broadway safely and without significant delays Systemwide** 13,664 15,113 10.6% Omaha BRT 1,366 1,575 15.3% while waiting on traffic and signal changes. This Broadway BRT 97 184 89.7% alternative allows the creation of a multi‐use Omaha Streetcar 1,192 1,550 30.0% trail loop on both sides of the Missouri River. 1st Ave Streetcar 483 1,310 171.2% *Including impacts of this transit solution on the system as a whole **Daily ridership for the entire Omaha‐Council Bluffs Metro system

38 Transit Alternatives Analysis Trail Only

Transit Scenario All scenarios assume the continued development of the multi‐use trail along the 1st Avenue corridor. This scenario was developed to consider opportunities for trail‐oriented development without further transit investment. Redevelopment is assumed to primarily occur within parcels owned by the City of Council Bluffs and other nearby vacant or underutilized properties. Development Scenario This scenario has lesser land use and development impact due to the lack of transit investment. However, the attractiveness of the trail and actions taken by the City to consolidate and prepare land for redevelopment is expected to generate redevelopment. Growth impacts are primarily on parcels adjacent to the trail.

39 Transit Alternatives Analysis Trail Only Scenario

Golf Course Area: PT1

40 Transit Alternatives Analysis Trail Only Scenario Analysis

Pre‐requisites: There are no pre‐requisites other Demographic Impacts (at full build‐out in 2040; over current): than current conditions, including developing the Population Dwelling Units Jobs right‐of‐way along 1st Avenue for trail use and Full Scenario +8,428 +4,948 +480 creating connections to other bicycle and Without Golf Course Redevelopment +4,315 +2,530 n/a pedestrian infrastructure at either end. Development Impacts Key co‐benefit projects: Bicycle and pedestrian (at full build‐out in 2040; square feet over current): improvements on surrounding cross streets to Residential Retail Office Full Scenario +5.8 million +60,000 +90,000 access the trail corridor. This may include bike Without Golf Course Redevelopment +2.9 million n/a n/a lanes and improved sidewalks, improved signalization to allow people walking and biking to Daily Ridership Impacts: cross Broadway safely and without significant N/A delays while waiting on traffic and signal changes.

41 Transit Alternatives Analysis 4. Comparison and Recommendation

42 Transit Alternatives Analysis Scenario Comparison

Cumulative Tax Each of the five scenarios described Estimated Transit Forecasted Daily Scenario Revenue Capital Cost Transit Ridership** in Part 3 requires different levels of (2021‐2040)* investment and yields varying Broadway BRT $19 million $838 million 540 degrees of economic development (Mixed‐Traffic) impact. 1st Avenue BRT $30 million $924 million 627 The table on this page summarizes (Dedicated‐ROW) the comparison factors for each Streetcar $143 million $1,629 million 1,385 scenario. These factors are further explored on the following pages. Combination (Broadway BRT and $158 million $1,744 million 1,494 Streetcar)

Trail Only ‐‐ $248 million ‐‐

*Incremental over current development.

**Daily number of transit rides within the Broadway/1st Avenue corridor, resulting from 43 Transit Alternatives Analysis population growth within each scenario, above the Trail Only / no‐build scenario. Transit Capital Costs

Estimated transit capital costs for each scenario are based on comparable costs from BRT and streetcar projects across North America, as well as costs from Omaha’s ORBT and streetcar projects where available and as applicable. These costs are planning‐level estimates and are based on existing transit technologies. Several factors can increase or decrease actual costs significantly, including: » The state of existing grading within the 1st Avenue corridor and degree of preparation needed to install streetcar tracks. » Cost‐saving alternative approaches, such as a rubber‐tired streetcar option that could provide the service qualities of streetcar at the cost of dedicated‐ROW BRT. » The need for (or alternatives to) building a streetcar/trail bridge over the Missouri River. » The ability to share a maintenance facility with Omaha.

The intent of the streetcar technology option is to provide low‐speed transit with closely‐spaced stops in the 1st Avenue corridor. Future innovations could provide alternative technologies that operate similarly but with lower capital and operational costs. Additional cost details are shown on the following page.

44 Transit Alternatives Analysis Transit Estimated Cost Details

Street Rail Tracks in Safety Total Cost* New New Maintenance Traffic Overhead Alternative Construction/ Dedicated barriers & New Bridge (Estimated, Vehicles Stations Yard Signals electrical Reconstruction Right‐of‐Way signs 2020)

Broadway BRT $8,000,000 $3,600,000 $450,000 $0 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $19,050,000 1st Avenue BRT $8,000,000 $3,600,000 $11,520,000 $0 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $30,120,000 Streetcar $18,000,000 $7,560,000 $6,300,000 $19,950,000 $16,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,500,000 $1,000,000 $70,000,000 $143,310,000 Combination $22,000,000 $10,378,800 $6,750,000 $19,950,000 $21,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,500,000 $2,000,000 $70,000,000 $157,578,800 *Not including the cost of professional services.

Unit Costs (Estimated, 2020) Vehicles, each (BRT; 8 vehicles assumed) $1,000,000 Rail/mile $4,200,000 Vehicles, each (Streetcar; 6 vehicles assumed) $3,000,000 Overhead Electrical/mile $700,000 Stations, each $300,000 Safety Barriers & Signs/intersection $50,000 Street construction/mile $5,000,000 New Bridge $70,000,000 Street mixed traffic treatments/mile $90,000 BRT Maintenance Facility $5,000,000 Traffic Signal Priority/intersection $50,000 Streetcar Maintenance Facility $16,000,000

45 Transit Alternatives Analysis Anticipated Economic Impact This table compares the development impacts of each scenario and includes an estimated total property value and expected annual incremental tax revenue at build‐out, based on a baseline value of $100 per square foot and annual appreciation of 3 percent.

Dwelling Residential Retail Office Property Value at Cumulative Tax Revenue Scenario Population Units Jobs Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet 2040 Build‐Out (2021‐2040) Broadway BRT Full Scenario +28,066 +16,783 +2,131 +17.2 million +730,000 +640,000 $4,156 million $838 million Without Golf Course Redevelopment +20,418 +12,267 +1,207 +12.7 million +330,000 +460,000 $3,520 million $631 million 1st Avenue BRT Full Scenario +33,650 +20,084 +2,892 +19.7 million +900,000 +720,000 $4,418 million $924 million Without Golf Course Redevelopment +26,001 +15,569 +1,969 +14.5 million +500,000 +530,000 $3,781 million $717 million 1st Avenue Streetcar Full Scenario +53,680 +32,150 +6,310 +29.0 million +2.5 million +1.2 million $6,769 million $1,629 million Without Golf Course Redevelopment +36,866 +22,186 +3,981 +21.1 million +1.4 million +1.0 million $5,514 million $1,231 million Combination Full Scenario +57,630 +34,583 +7,037 +31.1 million +2.8 million +1.4 million $7,128 million $1,744 million Without Golf Course Redevelopment +40,783 +24,619 +4,708 +23.2 million +1.8 million +1.2 million $5,875 million 1,347 million Trail Only Full Scenario +8,428 +4,948 +480 +5.8 million +60,000 +90,000 $2,293 million $248 million Without Golf Course Redevelopment +4,315 +2,530 n/a +2.9 million n/a n/a $1,380 million $122 million

46 Transit Alternatives Analysis Transit Investment Recommendation While the degree of impact varies, each scenario presents opportunities for economic development within the corridor. Selecting a path forward necessitates determining the amount of funding (including grants) that the City of Council Bluffs, Metro, MAPA, and other regional partners can secure to finance transit investments. Based on the vision for the corridor, analysis performed during this study, and anticipated return on investment in terms of transit capital costs compared to development impact, two investments stand out as preferred options: » 1st Avenue Streetcar. The preferred approach to transit in 1st Avenue is streetcar because its slow speeds are most compatible with the walking and biking activity envisioned for the corridor. In addition, the associated development scenario provides a high amount of opportunity. However, conventional streetcar is only operationally and financially feasible if it connects to downtown Omaha and Omaha moves forward with streetcar. Future innovations in technology could allow a comparable form of low‐speed transit that is less expensive than streetcar. Transit in the 1st Avenue corridor is the most impactful approach but will require many years of planning and preparation. » Broadway BRT could be implemented in the meantime to integrate with Omaha’s new ORBT system, spur additional initial development activity, and reinforce the role of transit in the corridor. BRT serves a different function (rapid travel) than streetcar and could continue to operate if and when streetcar is implemented. While these decisions are being considered, the City of Council Bluffs should continue to assemble land, revise ordinances as needed, consider creating financial incentives, and increase efforts to market the corridor to developers.

47 Transit Alternatives Analysis Priority Walking and Biking Investments

Ensuring safe and convenient access to the corridor is important, regardless of whether new transit service is provided. The Multimodal Corridor Access Study component of this project identified barriers and opportunities for accessing the 1st Avenue corridor for people walking and biking. The result was the identification of priority infrastructure projects that make it easier and safer for people to access the corridor. This map illustrates potential projects to improve comfort and safety of walking and biking. The City of Council Bluffs will need to review each recommendation for feasibility and make decisions based on budget availability. This map also shows the future 1st Ave Trail alignment (16th to 35th Street is currently being designed).

48 Transit Alternatives Analysis 49 Transit Alternatives Analysis